LaskyaClaren

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: the proposed software would merely replicate the tendencies, and mistakes, of human moderators -- without the human element. You make that sound like a negative. If you were writing the checks, would you rather write just one for the software, or one every two weeks for the moderators? Irihapeti's correct observation does not affect the business case, it explains the business case. If management hasn't a high degree of confidence in the capabilities of its moderation system/staff, wouldn't even a flawed algorithm warrant consideration? The flaws in each system may be different, the costs certainly are. Think like a CFO rather than an academic. Follow the money. Oh, I certainly get the principle. And "the money" is very much what this is about, of course. But the proposed software -- the point of the algorithm, really -- is not just that it can assume the tasks more cheaply of a human moderator with some degree of precision. It's that it is "proactive," and can (supposedly) "predict" thought crimes trolling behaviours before they might, hypothetically, happen. I take your point, and can understand the appeal of such software from a CFO's perspective, but I can't beileve that you -- with your non-CFO hat on -- would think that this is a good thing?

heraldprophet wrote: Hark! What do these eyes here behold? Why it is the gracious and insightful Lasky with a Friday thread. Wonders beyond His. I am the bearer of welcome and happy tidings from valiant, and steadfast of heart Derek, who has been banish'ed to the Isle of Rhodes where he continues his scholarship.( sotto voce: Confidentially, I believe he is spending most of his time in pursuit of the sultry and smouldering Mediterranean hussy, Scylla, she of the dark eyes and skin with hot blood coarsing through her veins...ahem you get the idea) Good Derek bids me convey that he concurs with most of the analysis given thus far by Lasky and the erudite Zoe, while lamenting the tripe that passes for science these days and muttering something about "...the best thing to come out of Stanford in the last ten years has been an empty bus." He would like to add, as you know how he gets once fired up, that immoderate persecution sanctioned by graduates of the University of Phoenix School of Business with a course in I/O Psych clinging to the untenable and flawed concept of Progressive Discipline, a question he posed to the feed of one with some kind of puffed title which she characteristically deleted, will necessarily come to the conclusions reached by the authors of the paper under consideration. Appearing insightful but lacking any depth whatsoever and the requisite sophistication that would lead to any worthwhile understanding. Let me see if I get the quote right, "There are three kinds of explanations, parsimonious, simplistic and simple minded and the paper fits the latter." To close he bids all good health and happiness. On a more personal note, to satisfy my own curiousity, I am wondering Lasky why it was you chose the name of a 1920's Brooklyn burlesque house that was burned down by suffragettes and temprance protesters? Gosh. You'll turn a poor girl's head with all of this fancy prose. I may of course be wrong, but the idea that any of the moderators here (or probably any other forum you might wish to name) reflect in any serious way upon the more subtle mechanics of effective moderation (yet alone with reference to academic studies on the subject) seems a bit unlikely. My sense has always been that, with a few exceptions (Blue, maybe?), moderation here has been delegated to those with nothing else more pressing to do, as a sort of afterthought (or maybe as a disciplinary measure?) I'm not sure, though, that what ails this place -- if indeed, anything does ail it, as it may be exactly what most of those who post here want it to be -- is related to moderation. I have to say, too, that the GD forum has always been a place where people came with general questions. Indeed, the precursor, going way back, to the GD forum was, in fact, called "Resident Answers." It was those who engaged in general discussion there who were the actual usurpers. PS. I know nothing of this burlesque house of which you speak. Tell me more!

ZoeTick wrote: Syo Emerald wrote: Minority Report for forums? That would be the LWL Watch Committee. Ah, the "LWL." The semi-mythical elite who are the Illuminati of SL forum conspiracy theories. (Did you know they assasinated a JFK avatar?)

Venus Petrov wrote: Death threats? Clearly, not sophisticated trolling. As I think I have observed previously, we have a much more sophisticated breed of troller here. (Never received a death threat here. I have received a couple of "offers" to "rape" me, but that was in-world, albeit as a consequence of things I'd written on the forum.)

irihapeti wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: ZoeTick wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Another interesting aspect, btw, is the conclusion that severe or heavy-handed moderation may actually increase "bad" behaviour. Their conclusion is flawed. It equates further post deletions with "worse" behaviour, which is particularly indicative of moderator bias against individuals rather than their posts. Hence my PPS. It may well be flawed, but it also factors in moderator bias by noting that part of the mechanism at work is the response of people to "unfair" moderation: While we present effective mechanisms for identifying and potentially weeding antisocial users out of a community, taking extreme action against small infractions can exacerbate antisocial behavior (e.g., unfairness can cause users to write worse). Though average classifier precision is relatively high (0.80), one in five users identified as antisocial are nonetheless misclassified. yes agree. This is the heart of it the model doesnt predict the actions of posters. It predicts the action of moderators responding to real and/or perceived poster behaviours Far more succinctly stated than anything I wrote, irihapeti! It's not really a study about trolls at all, but about moderation. And that makes its conclusions about algorithmic protections against trolling all the more suspect; the proposed software would merely replicate the tendencies, and mistakes, of human moderators -- without the human element.

Laurin Sorbet wrote: PS Hiya girl, I recognize you, too :-) That's because I'm 78.3% predictable (n = 1).

Laurin Sorbet wrote: I forget how to quote, but, "Another interesting aspect, btw, is the conclusion that severe or heavy-handed moderation may actually increase "bad" behaviour" has been another theme in the forums. When moderation was light, or you got the odd CALM DOWN! email or BEHAVE! post in a thread, behavior was much better. The forum was busy, lively and filled with insightful, amusing, and sometimes naughty posters. Threads weren't deleted, bannings were rare, and no ones head fell off. Mine did. And rolled onto another avatar. Hi Laurin, btw. :-)

ZoeTick wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Another interesting aspect, btw, is the conclusion that severe or heavy-handed moderation may actually increase "bad" behaviour. Their conclusion is flawed. It equates further post deletions with "worse" behaviour, which is particularly indicative of moderator bias against individuals rather than their posts. Hence my PPS. It may well be flawed, but it also factors in moderator bias by noting that part of the mechanism at work is the response of people to "unfair" moderation: While we present effective mechanisms for identifying and potentially weeding antisocial users out of a community, taking extreme action against small infractions can exacerbate antisocial behavior (e.g., unfairness can cause users to write worse). Though average classifier precision is relatively high (0.80), one in five users identified as antisocial are nonetheless misclassified.

ZoeTick wrote: OK, I lied. The study was biased, because it only looked at those who WERE banned, not distinguishing whether they SHOULD have been banned or not, nor investigating those who SHOULD have been banned but were not. The abstract suggested three activity indicators: 1. Concentration of efforts on a small number of threads 2. Posting irrelevantly 3. Successful at garnering responses from other users. Well, thank goodness I only satisfy the last of these, which is one that I would argue (particularly in a DISCUSSION forum) that would NOT indicate a troll, but would be the characteristic of a participant who engendered spirited exchanges of a range of viewpoints. The study suggests that trolls "write worse than other users over time" which suggests that the authors not only need to revisit Unclumsy English 101, but haven't identified any qualitative criteria regarding content, rather than activity. As far as their statement: "Our analysis also reveals distinct groups of users with different levels of antisocial behavior that can change over time." goes, I entered that into a content analyser and it registered a negative meaningfulness score. I also noted that the three principal authors of the paper had names which suggested strongly that they were ESLers. Go figure! PS Thank you Laskya for bringing this pile of steaming manure to our attention. I am delighted that it is the tax payers of North America who are paying for putative academics to waste their time. PPS Our friend Derek might be particularly unsurprised to note that the study observed those whose posts were deleted were more likely to have subsequent posts deleted. No attempt, however, is made to assess whether the deletions were justified. I have all sorts of problems with this study, some of which you identify, and a few that are different from yours. I think it's an interesting, if highly problematic and reductive, portrait of how "trolling" and "moderation" function, and relate to each other. I find its conclusions -- that an algorithm might be created that would permit software to "predict" future trolls, by which it really means people likely to be banned -- highly suspect and dangerous. Another interesting aspect, btw, is the conclusion that severe or heavy-handed moderation may actually increase "bad" behaviour.

Laurin Sorbet wrote: Given the vagaries of the various incarnations of moderation in this forum, maybe the Lab already has a proprietary algorithm in place. If they do, it's one that has introduced a deliberate random element.

Perrie Juran wrote: I saw the movie.... I calculated an 87.5% probability that you'd post that.

irihapeti wrote: is quite interesting this + basically is a predictor model that the authors say can help identify FBUs with approx. 80% accuracy. FBU = Future Banned User. A person who will get banned from a forum at some time in the future due to their behaviour edit: link typo Interesting, yes. Also terrifying, on a number of counts.

Ivanova Shostakovich wrote: I look forward to reading automatically generated forum posts and comments. It could be a whole new breed of drama. "But you are 42. Why is school something you look forward to?" I ran your post through Google's "Cleverbot." That's what it returned. Although uncanny in some respects, its relevance to your own comment doesn't exactly fill one with confidence, does it?

"A new paper suggests that it might be possible to identify potential trolls before they do their worst. Researchers at Stanford and Cornell have pulled out patterns of behaviour exhibited by the approximately one in 40 users of three news sites—CNN, Breitbart and IGN—who were subsequently banned for abuse. These include trolls’ unwillingness to mould their conversation to the slang of an online community; their propensity to swear; and the volume of contributions they make to a debate. Making an algorithm of these patterns, the researchers believe they can be 80% confident of identifying those likely to cause trouble within five posts online." I think this is an excellent idea. Really. Pre-Crimes -- er, Pre-Trolling R Us! Of course, what would really save time and money is an algorithm that predicts what I am going to write here before I write it, thereby obviating the need to, you know, actually post. The short article is here. (Of course, I know someone in command of a small army of alts who already knows what I'm going to say before I say it. He even knew I'd write this. Didn't you?)

Randall Ahren wrote: LlewLlwyd wrote: * What is the meaning of life? That was inspired by fascist forumers who respond to the simplest questions in general discussion by posting a screen shot of the answers section instead of answering the question. Did someone at Answers respond to your question with this? (Symmetry is very important in life, don't you think?)

Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: LlewLlwyd wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: This is almost enough to bring me back here. High praise indeed! [in case you didn't realise, Laskya, Rich is the epitome of the n00b we WANT to attract to the cleaned up GD.] [but I wouldn't advise getting too close to him, as a) he's English and b) he has a thing for dominant women.] You should know me well enough to recognize that I am above petty prejudices of this sort. Why, some of my best friends once knew an English person. And enjoying being spoken "at" by a woman is pretty much a prerequisite for any male of my acquaintance. (Which might explain why Friday is a "Girls' Night Out" around here . . .) Not that you haven't had offers. True. I have. :-) I was being a bit disingenuous for effect. In fact, "Girls' Night Out" is a matter of choice rather than necessity. I have an arrangement in that regard that is both somewhat like Deja's, and yet at the same time wholly unlike it. A perquisite of being one who speaks as often "at" as "with," I guess.

Ima Rang wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: This is almost enough to bring me back here. Almost. (It sounds as though you were a few inches from making it a sure thing. :matte-motes-evil-grin:) That's what she said. One reader laughed. :matte-motes-big-grin:

LlewLlwyd wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: This is almost enough to bring me back here. High praise indeed! [in case you didn't realise, Laskya, Rich is the epitome of the n00b we WANT to attract to the cleaned up GD.] [but I wouldn't advise getting too close to him, as a) he's English and b) he has a thing for dominant women.] You should know me well enough to recognize that I am above petty prejudices of this sort. Why, some of my best friends once knew an English person. And enjoying being spoken "at" by a woman is pretty much a prerequisite for any male of my acquaintance. (Which might explain why Friday is a "Girls' Night Out" around here . . .)

This is almost enough to bring me back here. Almost. (It sounds as though you were a few inches from making it a sure thing. :matte-motes-evil-grin:)

Well, apocalpytic predictions of the demise of the General Discussion forum here have been an established genre for at least as long as I've posted here or in its previous incarnations. It looks to me as though its time to move on to elegy. I remember saying, maybe a year ago or so, that obviously the new forum community liked it "quieter" here, and that that preference was their right. I'd congratulate them on establishing the Peace of the Grave, except that there is almost no one left to accept it. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe there is a community here that extends further than the four very familiar old faces who've bothered to post on this thread, but I'm not seeing it. Llazarus, Deja, Celestiall, and especially Derek, thanks for taking the time to do so. I wish you well in your new demesne, which seems to be pretty much your own to do with as you see fit. See you on the other side, as they say.

The Community Guidelines seem reasonably specific and detailed, although there is bound to be a subjective element in the judgement of things such as "flaming." How often have you had someone who is not a mod cite these in responding to you? Not very often, I'd bet. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that the only really substantive replies I've had in this thread about the nature of trolling are from the two regulars here most likely to be characterized as "trolls" by others in this community (vide. Londyn8, Bobbie, Cerise, SYNBOD, Heart, LondieMonroe, et al.). Possibly you and Mr. Llong are the exceptions to what I am talking about, however, because I think you have both gone out of your way to set yourselves up as "outsiders" here.

Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions. Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"? One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest. Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant. Either of those presupposes the deliberate violation of some kind of code that the accused does, or should, know about. Most online communities have no such "code" in an accessible form. So, determining the unwritten norms that govern how a community behaves becomes an act of interpretation on the part of the poster. It would be like not having written laws, but arguing that a criminal should have known by hanging around long enough that this or that was against what a community generally allowed. That seems to imply something that goes well beyond 'due diligence" from the putative troll. And again, it suggests that the troll is only a troll because she or he doesn't fit in with the norms exhibited by other members of the community, rather than an intent to violate specific codes. I disagree, as 'most' online communities do indeed have codes of conduct. Whether they are readily accessible may be of question and is probably determined more by the abilities of each individual to navigate. The codes themselves may be open to interpretation which depends of course on the ability to concisely present them in a manner that communicates their intent. It isn't an easy task to write in concrete language and as is demonstrated here every day, most are obstinately opposed to adhering to its content, preferring instead to behave in childishly defiant behaviour characterizing emotional dysregulation. It took me some searching to find the community guidelines for this place. I doubt very much that any but a very few fairly frequent posters have ever read them. So arguably they don't explain the phenomenon that I've tried to describe. Your last comment kind of embodies the sort of subjective response to other people's posts that I've also been describing. But it also raises an interesting question: if the majority of posters don't adhere to the written "rules," in what sense are the written rules a valid description of the social interactions in that place?

Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions. Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"? One would then necessarily question the nature of the fruit you are trying to harvest. Again, it becomes a question of General or Specific. Value judgements are irrelevant. Either of those presupposes the deliberate violation of some kind of code that the accused does, or should, know about. Most online communities have no such "code" in an accessible form. So, determining the unwritten norms that govern how a community behaves becomes an act of interpretation on the part of the poster. It would be like not having written laws, but arguing that a criminal should have known by hanging around long enough that this or that was against what a community generally allowed. That seems to imply something that goes well beyond 'due diligence" from the putative troll. And again, it suggests that the troll is only a troll because she or he doesn't fit in with the norms exhibited by other members of the community, rather than an intent to violate specific codes.

I like to differentiate between "derails" and possibly fruitful and interesting digressions. Perhaps, again, we too often leap to unwarranted conclusions about the intent and value of so-called "derails"?

Derek Torvalar wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: The jury may infer intent based upon indirect, circumstantial evidence. Real juries may well do so -- but the burden of proof is supposed to be much higher, and there is a whole systematic scaffolding of the way in which evidence is presented and treated that is, obviously, not present in the Wild West environment of most online communities. And, one could argue (and I'm sure it has been argued) that "criminality" is itself a function of social norms and community standards. Burden of proof is, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for criminal proceedings, and 'based on a preponderance of the evidence' for civil proceedings. How the evidence is presented in the 'Wild West' is wholly dependant on the individual(s) making the accusation so there is bound to be some discrepancy there as not all have the ability to formulate and peresent a case/argument of that nature. However, itemizing the aspects or situations in which the circumstantial evidence has occurred is not all that difficult. I think the point you are trying to make with your discussion is differentiating between General Intent and Specific Intent. PS Good morning, sleep well? What you are describing is surely a much more elaborate process than happens, in practice, in places like this? I don't think that the individuals who comprise online communities "deliberate" in any meaningful fashion, and even more rarely do they discuss. I think the tendency (and I'm sure there are exceptions) is to respond in a pretty unthinking and visceral fashion to posts that violate expectations about content or decorum. I slept very well, thank you, although possibly not long enough. I may need a nap. :-)